Bitcoin: The Digital Kill Switch

[AnonyMint]

And the Marxist thing was a playful jab - I'm a moderate but I do like the way Marx thought.  Capital was the only book I've ever read that was simultaneously interesting and boring lol

Okay we are good. Thank you.

[1714894155]

1714894155

[1714894155]

1714894155

[1714894155]

1714894155

[AnonyMint]

But if having a bigger HDD means you earn more, wouldn't that also lead to a spontaneous symmetry break where whoever gets enough of an advantage first becomes able to increase their own advantage exponentially faster than anyone else and eventually will hoard the equivalent of 51% of the storage space of the network?

1. I am not worried about an overt 51% attack, because Bitcoiners are correct when they say the world will fix any such damage. Overt attacks won't succeed. I am worried about the insidious cartelization threat that nobody can see even when it is in place, as I described very on the prior page of this thread.

2. So I don't have to worry if some large player controls 51%. I only need to worry that there isn't an economic death spiral that causes all miners to disappear except the evil ones. At least our transactions will still go through if our NUMBER has been turned off by the cartel.

With my proposed fix, they can never get any where close to 100% of the mining in any passive hidden scheme.

And realize that if there is a competing P2P currency with my proposed fix, then Bitcoin is also inherent fixed. Nice eh?

(fixed means cartel can never get near 100% control over all P2P currencies processing in any passive hidden scheme that fools the masses)

Litecoin AFAIK has same flaw as Bitcoin in stopping the coins at 84 million, so it is not a fix.

[jjdub7]

Okay we are good. Thank you.
[/quote]

You might be the only other person on the internet who can reconcile after a perceived conflict.  Cheers haha 

[AnonyMint]

From what I understand about the mining proposal it is not a "bigger is better" kind of thing.  It is more like anyone with enough drive space to store the needed information gets a chance to mine on a random basis.  But yes if I can run 1000 nodes I would then have 1000 "lottery tickets" to your 1 "lottery ticket" if you are running only one node.

I have not yet waded through the entire paper as it mostly says what is wrong with everyone else and is pretty light on implementation details.

Suggestion:  could you cut out just the details of the proposal from the document so we don't have to find it among all the other stuff?

I will of course soon do that. The first step was to establish that we need to fix the cartelization flaw.

Then hard-disk-space proposed improvement for Proof-of-Work is a separate issue.

It is not socialism. More capital gets more coins, that is the way it should be.

The difference is that everyone already has a harddisk, so they have some capital already. More level playing field that doesn't throw existing capital in the garbage.

[AnonyMint]

Okay we are good. Thank you.

You might be the only other person on the internet who can reconcile after a perceived conflict.  Cheers haha  

I hold no grudges (unless you gouge my remaining eye out), I love people that is why I am fighting for our freedom. Would be easier for myself if I joined the elite  (you know they are going to kill me for doing this, who else is brave enough?). And if I can make money, okay, but remember I said in the beginning that I would prefer bitcoin fix this or someone else create this.

But looks like I am the only one who can, so I will stop my other project to do this. I should be rewarded for that, but I won't cheat. I won't pre-mine.

I haven't figured out how to handle testing and launch yet. Will cross that bridge if I get there.

I have 5% cherokee blood. I take bullets. We do not descend from Chinese, the Cherokee genetically were from the first wave of migration from Europe.

[GCInc.]

Just do it. There's nothing to lose (hmm?), and everything to win. Unseen forces come to aid for the brave ones

[AnonyMint]

Okay we're good

I will be old by then any way.

[Jubalong]

Hello AnonyMint.

I read your OP with great interest. I wrote down some of my own thoughts about the past and coming situations. I see you have discussed and answered some of these things later in the thread, but I guess the main thing (interspersed somewhere in this rambling wall of text) is me disagreeing with you that initial wealth and the market cornering % attack stuff isn't a problem.

First of all, there are hard problems with mining and hoarding. Look back at when the current economic system was overlaid the older feudalistic system. There were two types of initial wealth vectors at that time: the old aristocracy converting their means into foundations, and the new system tycoons who absorbed wealth both from failed aristocrats and the public (mostly from failed aristocrats, making the new guard tycoons aristocrats by proxy - the public of our civilization haven't really owned anything of note since Rome.) With this initial wealth vector they have been able to completely dominate the modern economic system, as they did the previous. Powerful people always form cartels, there's no "might do" about it. This is simply because it's always more profitable (in the long run) for small groups to work together against the public than to compete. Long term planning always wins over the burst benefits of the short term.

I see no way the wealth vector from the old system wouldn't be able to flood into a mining system (as in if one machine can do a thing, a million machines can do a thing a million times.) It would be good to be able to construct a cryptocurrency that does not rely on mining in this way. Something where value is generated corresponding to real physical value (like human work or a product.) But then you lose the ability to entice people into the currency by playing off greed (like bitcoin,) making it extremely hard to implement. In essence, how does proof of work help when some are able to get insane amounts of more work done through socio-religious means? I point your attention to how fast the establishment smacked up the google and facebook networks (ready to serve billions of users) when the time came to implement Web 2.0. Cost, relating to the publicly shared money pool is, as you can see, a very small deterrence. In top circles, obviously, the currency is not money but slaves.

When attacking by "trying to match the resources of humanity" the rational thing to do is, of course, to turn humanity against itself. Another thing, computer prices are at present heavily subsidized with slave labor in the east - this is because in the coming governmental system everyone needs to be on (soon in) the net. If need be, the subsidization could be removed, or the platforms modified (smart phone?) Granted there is inertia to this, but it still needs to be considered.

Regarding gold, let me tell you a story about my great grandmother, who was an aristocrat of sorts. As WW1 drew closer common people invested in gold and silver as they do now, sensing the impending upheavals. At that time she was selling gold while transferring a large part of her estate into physical barter goods like canned food, alcohol, tobacco and cosmetics. Late during the war, when scarcity hit, her agents then traded these as black market goods into gold and silver at thousands of percent profit post-war. This is one of the ancient scams. Deflation and inflation is of no consequence. Bank and government price charts don't show the true value deflation of everything but necessities in a crisis. War is always coming (only the dead have seen the end of it,) but 99% of commoners act as if it probably won't. I remember as a kid listening to the old bastards laughing about it. Why do you think the hillbillies are being flooded with cheap meth?

You say that the power elites don't want to be obvious, the rationale sounding like this will stay their hand in the matter. This is a truth with modifications. Granted, they will operate covertly when they can, but I think history has shown amply that if the gains are alluring enough, they can be quite obtuse in their implementations. You need look no further than WW2 (the restructuring of imperial bureaucracy to a socialistic-oriented base (was it to be international or national?)) killing off a couple of hundred millions in the process.

To truly tackle this beast with a currency you would need to get at all three pillars of empire. Coinage, for sure, but also the courts (international, national) and religion (media and education.) To attempt to topple the tower by attacking just one pillar would be possible, but it has increased difficulty because the other fundaments stand ready to compensate and flood in. It must be designed so that it can stand up to this. The solution whatever it is must be holistic, outlaw-friendly and jihad-proof.

As you, I don't mean to be negative. Nothing I say should be taken as a deterrence, just perhaps food for thought. I work at the problem from a completely different angle, so it would be strange if we agreed. I do agree, however, that diversity is key, support your project and will follow it with interest.

How about TRUECOIN or FAIRCOIN? Hehe.

Best of luck!

[herzmeister]

The only required fix is to not stop making new coins.

Have you looked at Freicoin?

Something where value is generated corresponding to real physical value (like human work or a product.)

Have you looked at Ripple?

[Jimpyone]

I think people here may be a bit madder and overexcited than I imagined.

[AnonyMint]

I appreciate the rational discussion, that is what we need.

The 51% attack remains a problem for my idea more so than bitcoin, because assuming I am correct that bitcoin becomes a favorite vehicle of the cartel, then they have an incentive to overtly attack any system which competes with bitcoin (and can't be cartelized).

I am thinking of a new way to prevent the double-spend (I already mentioned it if you search all my posts, hehe).

I am thinking of solutions to this attack vector.

P.S. Maybe "mad" is not the correct way of viewing it. On the emotional or philosophical level (orthogonal to my non-emotional approach to design and engineering), we remember the Trail of Tears and the Holocaust. We are loving, calm, stoic, and when the time comes where they (or YOU) won't stop slaughtering (or mind programming) our women and children then we rip their heart out and eat it in front of them before they die. This is only done on an individual self-defense basis to those who are evil beasts (not to the ignorant who don't know they are supporting the evil beasts), otherwise we are loving to all people. We shared our produce and meat with them when they couldn't eat during the hard winter. The Apache were not defeated.

[AnonyMint]

Jubalong, I was jogging. Very astute and thought provoking post. I have been contemplating this also, and you explain well.

I may have another reply for you after I absorb what you've written.

[mobodick]

I think people here may be a bit madder and overexcited than I imagined.

Nah, the usual folks on this forum don't burn through tin foil hats like this guy does.

[AnonyMint]

The only required fix is to not stop making new coins.

Have you looked at Freicoin?

Yes I read the older discussion in the forum between the creator of Freicon and the person proposing Stablecoin. One uses demurrage which is basically a storage fee, and the other proposes a system-wide transaction fee. As I understand, both of these system varying the fees.

But I am not sure if they give those fees to the miners?

The system-wide transaction fee can be subverted, the cartel can send refund transactions.

If I remember correctly, the Freicon only charges demurrage on each transaction, so again it can be subverted.

So I am not sure if those systems address the cartelization attack vector.

Also Freicon's website is designed for PhD in economics, not for mass adoption.

Remember I created CoolPage drag+drop WYSIWYG web creation software for dummies in 1998 for Yahoo Geocities free hosting, Fortune City free hosting, etc. before friendster existed. I had a million users.

I create products for the mainstream. I know how to create user friendly products.

CoolPage.com has not been updated for 11 years. Sales just recently trickled to 0.

Something where value is generated corresponding to real physical value (like human work or a product.)

Have you looked at Ripple?

I am against money born as debt as the M0 base of the monetary system. What ever anyone wants to build on top with fractional reserve is fine, but it is not what I am working on.

[AnonyMint]

I think people here may be a bit madder and overexcited than I imagined.

Nah, the usual folks on this forum don't burn through tin foil hats like this guy does.

Are you still embarrassed for accusing me of FUD and being ignorant of the facts? Play your slimeball troll politics (devoid of any technical facts) in a non-technical arena please. We are trying to get some serious work done here. Go throw sand in another sand box please. I won't go pesker you there.

Please don't tell me I am going to continually ward off of these posts that are devoid of facts attempting to obfuscate/filibuster the technical discussion? Are we doing open source here, or a spit ball contest?

PLEASE DON'T FORCE ME TO LOCK THE TOPIC.

Because I have work to do, and I can't be here constantly looking to see if you are being unethical again.

[AnonyMint]

Powerful people always form cartels, there's no "might do" about it. This is simply because it's always more profitable (in the long run) for small groups to work together against the public than to compete. Long term planning always wins over the burst benefits of the short term.

I see no way the wealth vector from the old system wouldn't be able to flood into a mining system (as in if one machine can do a thing, a million machines can do a thing a million times.) It would be good to be able to construct a cryptocurrency that does not rely on mining in this way. Something where value is generated corresponding to real physical value (like human work or a product.) But then you lose the ability to entice people into the currency by playing off greed (like bitcoin,) making it extremely hard to implement.

To truly tackle this beast with a currency you would need to get at all three pillars of empire. Coinage, for sure, but also the courts (international, national) and religion (media and education.) To attempt to topple the tower by attacking just one pillar would be possible, but it has increased difficulty because the other fundaments stand ready to compensate and flood in. It must be designed so that it can stand up to this. The solution whatever it is must be holistic, outlaw-friendly and jihad-proof.

Jubalong,

You are spot on. I am impressed by your intellect, it would be my pleasure to know you more.

I am contemplating a solution to the 51% attack.

I am thinking we really don't need the miners to process transactions. We only need them to create new coins and to keep a copy of the transactions that occurred independently of the P2P database.

My idea which would also make transactions instantaneous, is that benefactor of a payment will stipulate how much reserve the payer has to attach to the payment. This reverse is returned to the payer after some time, when we are sure the payment has propagated into the P2P database. If the payer submits multiple spends within that time window, he forfeits everything including the reserve amount.

Perhaps that could be an optional mode perhaps, with the current single block chain as an alternative for those who don't want the option above.

Since only the payer's private key can create a duplicate spend, no malicious miner can do this.

Thus if 51% refuse to record the transaction, the other 49% do record the transaction. No harm done.

When the benefactor polls the database to see if a payer's balance is correct, any miner can respond.

The 51% is only need to determine who created the coins. From there, it is the private key that determines where the funds went to.

So as you said, keep the greed part for creating coins and get rid of the 51% attack on processing. We were thinking along the same lines, and I just hadn't written down (collected/assimilated) the thoughts I been having since yesterday.

The fact that Satoshi did not design the system this way (along with all the other weirdness, even the developers said he disappeared when they pushed to know his identity), is another reason I am Occam's Razor that he was working for the cartels. But whether this is true or not, isn't really worth arguing over and my thesis does not depend on it.

I need to think more if this is a viable design. This was just off the top of my head.

I am liking my choice of a name more and more, seems perfect:

DURACASH

If the 51% goes berserk and creates coins faster than the prescribed rate, then (some of) the benefactors will stop honoring those later coins. So they defeat themselves.

[mobodick]

I think people here may be a bit madder and overexcited than I imagined.

Nah, the usual folks on this forum don't burn through tin foil hats like this guy does.

Are you still embarrassed for accusing me of FUD and being ignorant of the facts? Play your slimeball troll politics (devoid of any technical facts) in a non-technical arena please. We are trying to get some serious work done here. Go throw sand in another sand box please. I won't go pesker you there.

Please don't tell me I am going to continually ward off of these posts that are devoid of facts attempting to obfuscate/filibuster the technical discussion? Are we doing open source here, or a spit ball contest?

PLEASE DON'T FORCE ME TO LOCK THE TOPIC.

Because I have work to do, and I can't be here constantly looking to see if you are being unethical again.

LOL., at least you're entertaining.
I've seen the threads you have started recently.
Funny stuff.

[AnonyMint]

Powerful people always form cartels, there's no "might do" about it. This is simply because it's always more profitable (in the long run) for small groups to work together against the public than to compete. Long term planning always wins over the burst benefits of the short term.

I see no way the wealth vector from the old system wouldn't be able to flood into a mining system (as in if one machine can do a thing, a million machines can do a thing a million times.) It would be good to be able to construct a cryptocurrency that does not rely on mining in this way. Something where value is generated corresponding to real physical value (like human work or a product.) But then you lose the ability to entice people into the currency by playing off greed (like bitcoin,) making it extremely hard to implement.

To truly tackle this beast with a currency you would need to get at all three pillars of empire. Coinage, for sure, but also the courts (international, national) and religion (media and education.) To attempt to topple the tower by attacking just one pillar would be possible, but it has increased difficulty because the other fundaments stand ready to compensate and flood in. It must be designed so that it can stand up to this. The solution whatever it is must be holistic, outlaw-friendly and jihad-proof.

Jubalong,

You are spot on. I am impressed by your intellect, it would be my pleasure to know you more.

I am contemplating a solution to the 51% attack.

I am thinking we really don't need the miners to process transactions. We only need them to create new coins and to keep a copy of the transactions that occurred independently of the P2P database.

My idea which would also make transactions instantaneous, is that benefactor of a payment will stipulate how much reserve the payer has to attach to the payment. This reverse is returned to the payer after some time, when we are sure the payment has propagated into the P2P database. If the payer submits multiple spends within that time window, he forfeits everything including the reserve amount.

Perhaps that could be an optional mode perhaps, with the current single block chain as an alternative for those who don't want the option above.

Since only the payer's private key can create a duplicate spend, no malicious miner can do this.

Thus if 51% refuse to record the transaction, the other 49% do record the transaction. No harm done.

When the benefactor polls the database to see if a payer's balance is correct, any miner can respond.

The 51% is only need to determine who created the coins. From there, it is the private key that determines where the funds went to.

So as you said, keep the greed part for creating coins and get rid of the 51% attack on processing. We were thinking along the same lines, and I just hadn't written down (collected/assimilated) the thoughts I been having since yesterday.

The fact that Satoshi did not design the system this way (along with all the other weirdness, even the developers said he disappeared when they pushed to know his identity), is another reason I am Occam's Razor that he was working for the cartels. But whether this is true or not, isn't really worth arguing over and my thesis does not depend on it.

I need to think more if this is a viable design. This was just off the top of my head.

I am liking my choice of a name more and more, seems perfect:

DURACASH

If the 51% goes berserk and creates coins faster than the prescribed rate, then (some of) the benefactors will stop honoring those later coins. So they defeat themselves.

[AnonyMint]

There are 2000+ reads on this thread, perhaps because for example maxkeiser has linked to this thread via David Morgan's copy of my article:

http://maxkeiser.com/2013/04/02/ag-fredericks-on-bitcoin/

(see bottom, right of page)

I am still working on getting this information out to more people who might be willing to publish it even more widely.

Ron Paul's strategy was to spread information, so at least I am doing that. Let's see if I can also spread a better implementation.

I've got 2000 reads on the marketoracle copy of the article already (2.5 days) and those readers are not finding this thread,  because it wasn't linked. My past articles have gotten up to 25,000 readers over time.

You simply can't stop me from getting the information out there, no matter how much you might filibuster (troll) this thread with your nonsense theories about "tinfoil hats and ufos". Rational people are not interested in such nonsense. We are more interested in facts, such as how corrupt the kangaroo courts are:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/03/31/so-what-part-of-ny-courts-r-corrupt-you-did-not-understand/

And what part of "torture repeats throughout history" do you not understand:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/04/01/euro-capital-flight-begins/

[AnonyMint]

I am thinking we really don't need the miners to process transactions. We only need them to create new coins and to keep a copy of the transactions that occurred independently of the P2P database.

You do realize exactly what the miners do, right?  They are not just out there playing the lotto.  They are performing vital duties with respect to verifying and validating the block chain.  That is what we are paying them for.

Yes of course. I am just thinking whether we can minimize what we need them for. I will need to think more deeply first, and then write it down more technically. I am not sure if what I wrote in the prior post will work. It was just off the top of my head.

My thought == we really only need the SINGLE block chain for the creation of coins.  After that, the BILLIONS of private key chains are sufficient independently. Tada!  I will explain more once I have thought it out more to make sure my initial intuition is correct.

Think of it like this, the creation of coins has to be agreed by everyone. The transfer of money only has to be agreed between payer and recipient. Just need a localized method of preventing double-spend instead of globalized, which I already offered.

The issue with this revolves around global time. I need to think about this more.